g33k 2

I've decided to deviate from the normal workings of the g33k series and delve into something a little bit more newsworthy- Internet culture. For the last four days, eBaumsWorld.com has been under attack from many sources, including YTMND.com, SomethingAwful.com, 4chan.org, and other major websites. The reason? Theft. The punishment? Virtual lynching.

But let us first look at the Internet culture in the first place. Ever since the creation of the Internet, it has been a haven for geekdom. Nowhere else in the world, be it virtual or not, can you find a place in which the free trade of ideas (And in this case, obsessions) can be practiced without any problems whatsoever. Groups team together with certain ideals to create huge monolithic groups with similar members. And that is the Internet- broken into hundreds of subcultures, and a virtual war zone between fellow geeks.

So, what are the rules in this war zone? That exact question is the crux of most arguments on the Internet. The opinions usually break down into two distinct opinions:

1.?There are no rules on the Internet? (EG: Gang warfare)
2.?The Internet should be/is monitored by the government? (EG: 1984)



Let's delve into these opinions- and then by investigating them, I will show how this problem has compounded over the years.

1.?There are no rules?
This belief has spawned out of a known truth: no country owns the Internet. There is no Internet Police, nor is it likely there will ever be such a thing. As long as you don't do something blatantly illegal, such as Child Pornography, you can run free and do anything you feel like.

Of course, this is a fallacy. This makes the presumption that you can hack, crack, harass, irritate, or basically do whatever you feel like without recompense. Governments of various countries do get involved, but believers of this school of thought point out that the only time in which actual court suits are brought up are when it involves illegal pornography or corporate hacking, neither of which being ?big happenings? on the Internet.

This leads the followers to one conclusion: that the only way to keep safe is to be on the offensive. Firewalls, hack proofing, and other various means are ways in which to put armor on your virtual soldier. In that way, you somewhat protect yourself, and then you can go and attack the weaker soldiers by hacking or generally harassing. This is primarily the reason why the term ?n00b? (Newbie, new person, etc) is looked down upon- it usually means that person in particular is unfamiliar to the ?Rules?.

2.?The Internet should/is regulated?
This belief is usually held by those who are not accustomed to the Internet for long periods of time, such as Soccer Moms and bloggers. Because they are not ?On the offensive?, they find themselves in great danger to be attacked by Category 1 people. As such, Category 2 people tend to group together quite a bit more, because it provides a ?Safety Blanket? to protect them from the evil, evil Category 1s.

Of course, this is no more truth than Category 1. It is literally impossible for one country to monitor the Internet. The Internet is not American, English, Canadian, Japanese, or anything else. It is an interconnection of computers- and as such, there is a natural rule saying that one country can't tell another country what happens on their network. And thus the problems start.

This, regardless of the truth, is still an interesting thing to look at from the Human Condition perspective. People in everyday society in MDCs (More Developed Countries) tend to view their enforcement officers as protectors of their rights, and it is foreign to them to be thrown into a position where there is no ?Daddy? to protect them. One could even draw a parallel between the Internet and the original state of Man- unlimited and ungoverned- but then again, we have so many inbred cultural ?Rules? that it barely fits the parallel.

Page 1    Page 2